How has Nadal's injuries inflated his nearest competitors' careers?

You're a joke of a poster. Don't make up strawman arguments and pin them to me in future. Even your fellow Nadal buttpickers are tired of your posts.

I never said it doesn't count. I just think h2h should be broken down by surface. Saying look how good Rafa is he dominates his rivals is rather shallow, and doesn't take into account that he's much more likely to be beaten by them on hardcourt than he is on clay. If he leads 6-2 against player 'X' but he's won all 6 of his encounters on clay and lost both his meetings on grass then the 6-2 doesn't tell the whole story.

That was my only point. If you didn't jump to conclusions and actually had some semblence of my posting history you'd be aware that I've actually elaborated on this view more than once.

Click to expand...

your point is near moot, since Nadal has beaten all 3 other top players on their best surfaces (be it grass or HC) as well as on clay!

I think Nadal's biggest problem isn't his style of play but his scheduling. It's not random chance that the two biggest injury lay-offs of his career happened around Wimbledon. (I know the foot problem in 2005 caused him to miss a good four months, but I would say it was less important than missing Wimbledon where he was defending champion even if it was a longer span of time.) He plays so much on clay. So many of his points come from clay that I think he feels he needs to play that much. He's got Monte-Carlo, Barcelona, Madrid, Rome, and the French Open with about two weeks rest, then Queens and Wimbledon right after. Any knee issues he has are simply compounded by his poor scheduling. If he skipped Barcelona or one of the clay Masters, he would get more rest, play fewer matches, have more time to train, etc. I'm not saying his knee issues are all his own fault by any means, but I thought, coming back this year after missing seven months, that he might try scheduling his clay season a little differently so as not to overplay.

No, he's not the favorite, but he's beaten Nole on hard court multiple times. your point would be more salient if Nadal had never beaten Nole/Federer/Murray on their best surfaces, but he has multiple times and much more so than said group has beaten him on clay.

so basically you are saying Nadal is better on his least favorite surfaces than said group is on their least favorite. And/Or you're saying Nadal is head and shoulders above anyone else on his favorite surface much more so than said group is on theirs...

either way, its not near the most significant of points or arguments. Nadal has won the biggest tournaments, facing the highest competition, on all the surfaces...

no, his competition is lucky he was born with certain physical ailments that has plagued his career with injury (from bearable to near debilitating) and thus inflated their stats...

Click to expand...

1. Nadal must sacrifice his body to win those 11 slams, otherwise you either have a healthy Nadal with little success. Plus, his injuries are grossly exaggerated.

2. Injury is part of the sport so there's no luck. All players play with some pain, it's a matter of one's willing to play hurt(eg Roger in 2005 Master Cup)There are players that are the unfortunate one(eg Haas), far more worse than Nadal, but tough, such as life....

also the highest form I've seen of Nadal on hard court is above Nole's peak and at least equal to Federer's (but peak Nadal would most likely defeat peak Federer on HC due to matchup and Federer mental issues).

No, he's not the favorite, but he's beaten Nole on hard court multiple times. your point would be more salient if Nadal had never beaten Nole/Federer/Murray on their best surfaces, but he has multiple times and much more so than said group has beaten him on clay.

so basically you are saying Nadal is better on his least favorite surfaces than said group is on their least favorite. And/Or you're saying Nadal is head and shoulders above anyone else on his favorite surface much more so than said group is on theirs...

either way, its not near the most significant of points or arguments. Nadal has won the biggest tournaments, facing the highest competition, on all the surfaces...

Click to expand...

That's clearly true. No one denies that Nadal is a great player on hardcourts and even more so on grass but most of his head to head advantage is built up on clay. He's a better clay courter than Djokovic but Djokovic is better on hardcourts. That's what counts when they play eachother. Nadal's 12 - 3 advantage on clay won't help him at the USO or Cinncinati.

No, he's not the favorite, but he's beaten Nole on hard court multiple times. your point would be more salient if Nadal had never beaten Nole/Federer/Murray on their best surfaces, but he has multiple times and much more so than said group has beaten him on clay.

...

Click to expand...

That is very true about Fed: Nadal has beaten him 6 times on hard while Fed has beaten him on clay only twice. Even more true about Murray: Nadal beat him 6 times on hard, Murray is 0-4 vs Nadal on clay. Things are a bit closer with Novak. 5 victories for Nadal on hard. 3 for Novak on clay.

1. Nadal must sacrifice his body to win those 11 slams, otherwise you either have a healthy Nadal with little success. Plus, his injuries are grossly exaggerated.

2. Injury is part of the sport so there's no luck. All players play with some pain, it's a matter of one's willing to play hurt(eg Roger in 2005 Master Cup)There are players that are the unfortunate one(eg Haas), far more worse than Nadal, but tough, such as life....

Click to expand...

thats poppycock!

all the players play extremely physically now. don't blame Nadal that his highest intensity level is above the others!

and of course all the players play with some pain, what do you think Nadal is doing now

and while I agree that Nadal has not been unlucky as Haas, he certainly has suffered from 'unfortunate coincidence' far more so than Federer or Nole!

certainly if Nadal missed Wimbledon, the biggest slam in most people's eyes and one of Nadal's favorite tournaments that he was defending no less, he was obviously injured pretty badly in 09!

what other proof do you need in Nadal pretty easily dismissing Soderling the very next year at RG...

Click to expand...

Ahhh....

I think you misread what I said. I said that basically he missed one big event in 2009, that was Wimbledon, he didn't miss months and months, and it sometimes gets blown up to be. Because he lost early at RG, and didn't play W, it looks like he took a long time off. In reality, he basically skipped W, and possibly Queens. After W, all the top players take a month or so off anyway before Canada.

I don't see how that is trolling. I just said what amount of time he had off, and that he missed one big event, not multiple slams and masters events like 2012.

You're a joke of a poster. Don't make up strawman arguments and pin them to me in future. Even your fellow Nadal buttpickers are tired of your posts.

I never said it doesn't count. I just think h2h should be broken down by surface. Saying look how good Rafa is he dominates his rivals is rather shallow, and doesn't take into account that he's much more likely to be beaten by them on hardcourt than he is on clay. If he leads 6-2 against player 'X' but he's won all 6 of his encounters on clay and lost both his meetings on grass then the 6-2 doesn't tell the whole story.

That was my only point. If you didn't jump to conclusions and actually had some semblence of my posting history you'd be aware that I've actually elaborated on this view more than once.

Click to expand...

It's a joke to try and act as if clay doesn't count, which is exactly what you've just said in a nutshell. I have heard this same tired argument from your kind far too often, and it is always the same crap as before. Trying to spin it as if you are shedding light on something that has never seen light before is just bs.

I'll break it down for you: Clay counts just as much as any other surface. It is also easier for hard court specialists like Murray, Fed, and Djesus to dominate because more than 70% of the tour is made up of them. Nadal has done just fine when you consider how disproportionate the surfaces are on the tour, and that his least favorite surface makes up nearly every tournament out there. Nadal has also been far more dominant on his best surface than any of the other 3 have on theirs.

You're so blind. Of course Federer gets injured, and he got injured even in his prime. In 2004, he tore his left thigh and had to miss Basel and Paris. In 2005, he hurt his ankle and had to miss Madrid, Basel, and Paris. He played the 2005 WTF and even some of the 2006 Australian Open in an ankle brace, for Christ's sake. Do you even watch tennis?

Click to expand...

Not to mention back problems that he doesn't announce with a loud speaker.
Those may have cost him.
The mono took a lot out of him and hurt the training schedule for months on end.

Hewitt was slower after 2005. Hewitt was ranked at number 2 in the world for several months in 2005, but missed the last few months of the year due to injury. When he returned, he was slower and his timing seemed less crisp.

all the players play extremely physically now. don't blame Nadal that his highest intensity level is above the others!

and of course all the players play with some pain, what do you think Nadal is doing now

and while I agree that Nadal has not been unlucky as Haas, he certainly has suffered from 'unfortunate coincidence' far more so than Federer or Nole!

Click to expand...

So we all agree that injuries is part of the sport then this thread is pointless. Every players has their own problem, some are even worse situation than Nadal. Who's blaming on Nadal? It's his choice to sacrifice his body for his success. The unlucky one are the one that has a freak accident(e.g. Blake broke his neck). Nadal is not unlucky.

Hewitt was slower after 2005. Hewitt was ranked at number 2 in the world for several months in 2005, but missed the last few months of the year due to injury. When he returned, he was slower and his timing seemed less crisp.

Click to expand...

Hewitt still had great footwork and gameplay post his first layoff in 2005. His level might have been even higher without anything happening to him.

The second half of 2005, yes, Hewitt was slower once the 2006 Australian Open started.

If Nadal wasn't injury prone then he would probably would have broken the slam record before Fed did

What Hurt Nadal the most is he got injured during what should have been the PEAK of his career. The way he was playing from 2008-2010, barring injury he would have won 90-95 percent of those slams.

2011 he started on a downhill turn (level wise) probably which the injuries precipitated. He was never the same after 2010

Getting hurt during the peak of your career is a major hit. Imagine if Fed suffered injury during the 2005-2007 seasons. He would be wayy off the 17 slam mark right now.

Nadal's prime should have been 2008-2012 but he was taken out by injuries twice

Yea many will attribute that to his playing style. But people forget it he already had injury problems prior to ever joining the pro circuit.

Djokovic also plays that similar style and hasn't suffered the injury problems like that. Some guys are just more injury prone then others.

When I look back at Nadal's career i would say he should have been a hands down GOAT Candidate but injuries stopped that from happening

Click to expand...

Rafa impresses but he is so off balance looking on so many of his gets that it cannot be good for his body to throw himself into semi-violently retrieving over such a wide area of court repeatedly when this clearly puts him in either lunging or off balance positions over and over but this is what he seems to have chosen for himself so I don't exactly pity him, but he impresses nonetheless for his resolve...but don't talk about "what if" (he hadn't developed injuries) because it seems to have been some kind of pact which he made from the very start to utilize his movement to the extreme, and it has paid him as handsomely as it has exacted its prefigured toll, in my view.

So we all agree that injuries is part of the sport then this thread is pointless. Every players has their own problem, some are even worse situation than Nadal. Who's blaming on Nadal? It's his choice to sacrifice his body for his success. The unlucky one are the one that has a freak accident(e.g. Blake broke his neck). Nadal is not unlucky.

Click to expand...

^^^ This.

As many have already said, almost everyone was predicting Nadal's style would lead to injury, but he and his team took a calculated risk. He's got some big prizes, but the cost may be retiring younger than some of his peers, but hopefully he will know to stop before he carries an injury that will have a considerable impact after he's retired.

Most players experience injury or ill health during their careers, and many of them will have played at least some tournaments while still recovering, giving their opponents an advantage.

As far as I'm aware, there was no underlying weakness in Nadal's knees. Just normal human knees that can only take so much. If you are going to play the "what if ..." game, you would do far better to wonder how Murray would be if he didn't have a bipartite patella. Unlike Nadal, he seems to have actually modified how he plays to stop that from becoming a much more serious problem, and is quite probably is a factor in him never quite getting the movement right on clay.

There is nothing special about Nadal's injuries compared with other players, except they are always used as an excuse for defeat.

You could extend this thinking to all players that retired when bad backs and aching joints became more trouble than it was worth. What if David Ferrer was 6"1' like Nadal? What if Nadal were right handed? What if Djokovic didn't need to wear contact lenses?

The reality is that all players have to make the most of the body and natural talents they are given. There is a certain amount of luck in how often, when and how badly you get sick and injured, but part of being a professional is managing that, and part of being on tour is accepting that you won't be able to play every tournament in peak physical health.

It's a joke to try and act as if clay doesn't count, which is exactly what you've just said in a nutshell. I have heard this same tired argument from your kind far too often, and it is always the same crap as before. Trying to spin it as if you are shedding light on something that has never seen light before is just bs.

I'll break it down for you: Clay counts just as much as any other surface. It is also easier for hard court specialists like Murray, Fed, and Djesus to dominate because more than 70% of the tour is made up of them. Nadal has done just fine when you consider how disproportionate the surfaces are on the tour, and that his least favorite surface makes up nearly every tournament out there. Nadal has also been far more dominant on his best surface than any of the other 3 have on theirs.

Click to expand...

I guess you would know what bs is. How about you find a single quote of mine where I say clay doesn't count. Otherwise keep stum.

Amother interesting stat of Nadal on hard court is that he is 6-6 overall (6-5 if not counting the Miami walkover as a Murray win) vs Murray and 6-6 overall vs Fed. But he's 5-11 vs Djoko. Injury or not, the only one of the 3 who truly dominates Rafa on hard is Novak. It is quite conceivable that with fewer injury mishaps, Nadal would actually lead the head to head vs both Fed and Murray on hard.

Amother interesting stat of Nadal on hard court is that he is 6-6 overall (6-5 if not counting the Miami walkover as a Murray win) vs Murray and 6-6 overall vs Fed. But he's 5-11 vs Djoko. Injury or not, the only one of the 3 who truly dominates Rafa on hard is Novak. It is quite conceivable that with fewer injury mishaps, Nadal would actually lead the head to head vs both Fed and Murray on hard.

Click to expand...

Why would Nadal being injury free mean he would lead the head to head on hardcourts...Nadal has the benefit of playing most of his matches versus the other top 3 on clay or on high bouncing slow hardcourts which suite his game. If Nadal had met Federer twice at the USO or at Cincinati a couple of times the h2h on hards might look quite different.

Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!

Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!

Click to expand...

Federer and Murray are not HC specialists. They are equally proficient on grass courts. And Nadal is no one dimensional clay courter, in fact before his clay court rise in 2005, he was lethal on HC with a much more attacking game. Look at that classic with Hewitt in AO 05 as an example.

Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!

Click to expand...

Or he could have had a couple of losses? Nadal only missed a couple of months in 09 and it mostly the grass season. Nadal beating post prime Federer shows he's a better hardcourter peak for peak? lol. I've never said Rafa is a clay mogul either. Federer isn't a hardcourt specialist by any stretch either. His best surface is arguably grass at his peak. Likewise Murray is great on grass.

All those head to head wins on hard and it's still 9 > 2 to Federer in slam titles.

We can throw around "what ifs" all day long but I think that, to an extent, Nadal's injuries did benefit his closest competitors. That's common sense; they had one less threat to contend with.

What makes this a joke, though (and makes others hostile towards the OP's otherwise valid point), is that he does not allow the same "asterisk" to be levied against Nadal. In supposedly every victory Nadal's ever enjoyed against Djokovic, Federer, and Murray, the latter three have always played at or close to their best level whereas in Nadal's losses to those players Nadal was injured. You can go ahead and argue that Nadal's injuries have benefitted his opponents but you have to admit the same of the others' injuries as well.

Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!

Click to expand...

And they couldn"t have?

Do you realize how poor your arguments are?

It is not enough for the Nadal fanboys and fangirls that Nadal had the advantage to play two thirds of his matches against the said players on surfaces (clay and slow HC), that suit his game more, but now you are making far fetched assumptions.

So, how did the last two meetings between Murray and Nadal on HC ended, that you presume, that Nadal would have gained advantage on HC over him?

And LOL at the HC H2H between Nadal and Federer. I suppose, that if Nadal meets a 40 years old Federer in 8 years time he would even have the advantage.

Because if Nadal had played 2012 throughout (or 2009), it is conceiveble that he could have got a couple wins more over Fed or Murray. But even with the way it is, neither Fed nor Murray LEAD the head to head vs Rafa on hard, which is pretty funny when supposedly Rafa is such a clay mogul and Fed and Murray hard court specialists!!!

Click to expand...

Which of Federer's victories over Nadal would have been overturned had Nadal not been injured?

Nadal is 5 years younger than Federer, so it's only natural that he's going to be scoring more and more wins. Apart from 08 to early 09 their rivalry hasn't been nearly so one sided. 8-6 to Rafa and then 6 - 4 to Rafa. So I could easily say what if Federer never got mono and never had his training interrupted? Maybe his form wouldn't have collapsed so much and Nadal wouldn't have gained such a mental edge...

Nope. Lets agree to disgree. Murray has multiple semis and a final at Wimbledon. Several titles at Queens. And won Olympic Gold, beating the greatest grass court player of this generation. If the grass season was more extended, it is one month, he would certainly be winning more. He's only lost to Nadal and Federer, the top two grass court players of this era at Wimbledon since his rise, and an inspired Roddick, who is arguably the third best of the era. Saying Murray is just a HC specialist is wrong, he has game for grass.

Exactly. Going back over those six matches, the only one that I can remember where Nadal's fans vehemently screamed injury was the 2011 WTF RR match. But Nadal wasn't beating Federer there, injury or not.

Murray can only participate in basically 2 tournaments a year on grass...If grass was better represented his titles would be higher.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and he's played as few grass events as Murray. If Murray can make hard court finals for 7+ seasons and multiple hard slam finals, there's no excuse for not doing it on grass (if it was true he was a grass court specialist, which is not the case.)

Federer would absolutely definitely not have won 3 slams in 2009. The worst tennis of his career. He lost tournament after tournament to Djoker and Murray where he hit 20+ backhand errors. Then in the summer Djoker and Murray didn't show up for the slams and Nadal was injured. There is absolutely no way Fed could have won those slams with Nadal around. Zero chance.

Nope. Lets agree to disgree. Murray has multiple semis and a final at Wimbledon. Several titles at Queens. .

Click to expand...

Lol who cares about semis? You want grass specialist stats? Fed: 8 W finals, Nadal: 5 W finals. If 1 W final makes Murray a grass specialist, then Djoko is even more of a grass specialist because he WON his 1 final. Several Queen's?? He won 2. A couple, not the same as several. Once again, you want specialists stats in 250 on grass? Take Fed, Hewitt or Roddick.
ETA: careful. I am not arguing Murray is bad on grass or won't be successful on grass in the future. What I'm arguing is that so far he's been a hard court specialist with almost all titles won and best results overall on hard.

Nonsense. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and he's played as few grass events as Murray. If Murray can make hard court finals for 7+ seasons and multiple hard slam finals, there's no excuse for not doing it on grass (if it was true he was a grass court specialist, which is not the case.)

Click to expand...

Nadal matured as a player alot earlier than Murray did. He didn't make his first hardcourt slam final until 2008, a year later is when he started making consistant semi's at Wimbledon. He went down to Nadal 2 years in a row in the semi's.

Federer would absolutely definitely not have won 3 slams in 2009. The worst tennis of his career. He lost tournament after tournament to Djoker and Murray where he hit 20+ backhand errors. Then in the summer Djoker and Murray didn't show up for the slams and Nadal was injured. There is absolutely no way Fed could have won those slams with Nadal around. Zero chance.

Click to expand...

Well, he didn't win 3 slams in 2009. He got to four finals, but lost two of them.

Lol who cares about semis? You want grass specialist stats? Fed: 8 W finals, Nadal: 5 W finals. If 1 W final makes Murray a grass specialist, then Djoko is even more of a grass specialist because he WON his 1 final. Several Queen's?? He won 2. A couple, not the same as several. Once again, you want specialists stats in 250 on grass? Take Fed, Hewitt or Roddick.

Click to expand...

I never called him a grass called specialist, I said he is not just a HC specialist, he is proficient on grass also. You are implying that he is a HC specialist. Tell me right now, don't you think Murray is a legitimate contender for Wimbledon this year?

Just because Federer and Nadal are better grass court players, that doesn't mean Murray doesn't have a game that translate well to grass, and doesn't give him sucess on grass. You have to be blind not to see he is very comfortable on the surface. I like Djokovic, but I give Murray a higher ranking ability wise on grass, that is my assessment.

So if federer was lucky to avoid nadal in all those hard court majors, Nadal is even luckier to avoid Davydenko in HC majors. There is no indication that Nadal could beat davydenko on a HC. Nadal last beat davydenko on a HC in 2006 LMAO

I never called him a grass called specialist, I said he is not just a HC specialist, he is proficient on grass also. You are implying that he is a HC specialist. Tell me right now, don't you think Murray is a legitimate contender for Wimbledon this year?

Just because Federer and Nadal are better grass court players, that doesn't mean Murray doesn't have a game that translate well to grass, and doesn't give him sucess on grass. You have to be blind not to see he is very comfortable on the surface. I like Djokovic, but I give Murray a higher ranking ability wise on grass, that is my assessment.

Click to expand...

I think Murray has a shot to win Wimledon this year. He has come a long way, and this maybe his time. There's been many tough losses for him on hc slams, and he finally managed to win one last year. Why not grass too, since he proved himself last year that he was close in winning Wimbledon, and won the Olympics.

I think Murray has a shot to win Wimledon this year. He has come a long way, and this maybe his time. There's been many tough losses for him on hc slams, and he finally managed to win one last year. Why not grass too, since he proved himself last year that he was close in winning Wimbledon, and won the Olympics.

Click to expand...

Completely agree.

After Federer, the reigning and defending Wimbledon champion, and possibly Nadal (since what happens at RG will give a big indication of what kind of Nadal shows up at W), Murray has got to be up there. He has grass court pedigree. Last year, Federer had to play sensational tennis to stop Murray's momentum before the rain. Of course after the rain, it was one way traffic, but quality was fantastic, since they brought so much variety to court, which grass court tennis can produce.

He certainly has a shot, so I don't understand why some think he is HC specialist.

I never called him a grass called specialist, I said he is not just a HC specialist, he is proficient on grass also. You are implying that he is a HC specialist. Tell me right now, don't you think Murray is a legitimate contender for Wimbledon this year?

Just because Federer and Nadal are better grass court players, that doesn't mean Murray doesn't have a game that translate well to grass, and doesn't give him sucess on grass. You have to be blind not to see he is very comfortable on the surface. I like Djokovic, but I give Murray a higher ranking ability wise on grass, that is my assessment.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter at all. It was never my point to begin with. My point is: both Fed and Murray have had their best results on hard and neither is leading the head to head vs Nadal on hard (their results on grass is 100% irrelevant to that point and Murray has an even worse head to head vs Nadal on grass anyway!). Both Fed and Murray have fared strikingly poorly vs Rafa on hard, given their overall records on that surface. Djokovic is the only player who has managed to do well vs Nadal on his best surface. That's a tribute to Nadal's talent DESPITE the injuries.